IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.28991 of 2014 BETWEEN B.Jayarama Reddy and others AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. By the present writ petition, petitioners question the show cause notice issued by the Joint Collector, respondent No.3, dated 15.09.2014 on various factual grounds and also on the ground of alleged information, received by the petitioners from respondent Nos.4 and 5, that respondent No.2 is pressurizing respondent No.3 to cancel the revenue entries in favour of the petitioners under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for short ‘the Act’) and to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds.
3. A reading of the impugned notice shows that the Joint Collector received a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein it was brought to his notice, on the basis of enquiry, that the revenue entries in favour of the petitioners appeared to have been affected by misrepresentation on facts before the revenue authorities.
After quoting the salient features of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the present show cause notice is issued to the petitioners requiring them to appear in person or through counsel and file an explanation against the said notice.
4. Petitioners also question the impugned notice on the ground that suo motu powers cannot be exercised after long lapse of time and for that purpose places strong reliance upon decision of this court in VALLABHDAS PALLOD (DIED) AND OTHERS v. NAGAR PANCHAYAT (MC),
[1]
ZAHEERABAD .
5. So far as the allegation of exercise of power by respondent No.3 on the pressure and at the instance of respondent No.2 is concerned, there is, admittedly, no material and it is all based upon the hearsay statements made in the affidavit. Since respondent Nos.2 and 3 are responsible IAS Officers, prima facie, I have no material to accept such allegations, which are based on hear say material. The allegations, prima facie, appear with regard to misrepresentation and hence under Section 9 of the Act, the Joint Collector is empowered to satisfy himself that any proceedings issued under the Act and to call for and examine the record of any proceeding of recording authority in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, illegality and propriety of any decision taken or order passed or proceedings made by the said authorities and if satisfied, by exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act, such decision can be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration. The powers under Section 9 of the Act, therefore, being wide, I am of the view that the impugned notice, issued by respondent No.3, Joint Collector, is intra virus the powers under Section 9 of the Act.
6. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the power is being exercised after long delay, is concerned, the legal position in that regard is not in controversy as it has been consistently held by this court in VALLABHDAS PALLOD (DIED)’s case (1 supra) and other decisions also that the power under Section 9 must be exercised within a reasonable time.
However, the exception to such statement of law is only in case a proceeding is alleged to be vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation.
It is well settled that fraud vitiates any act whether judicial, quasi judicial or administrative. In the present case, since misrepresentation is alleged, the Joint Collector was well within his powers to exercise powers under Section 9 of the Act and has rightly issued a notice to the petitioners. It is for the petitioners, therefore, to appear before respondent No.3 to submit their objections by filing a detailed explanation. They are also at liberty to seek copies of the documents such as report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, which is relied upon in the show cause notice and they are at liberty to submit all such documents in support of their case along with the explanation.
7. Since the petitioner’s claim that the matter is being hurriedly prosecuted and they are not being granted adequate time, in the interest of justice, the petitioners are granted two (2) weeks time from today to appear before the Joint Collector and submit their explanation together with the documents as they desire. Till the Joint Collector examines the matter, status quo, existing with regard to the land, shall be maintained, particularly, in view of the suspension of the notice of the Tahsildar by this Court in W.P.No.25756 of 2014 dated 03.09.2014.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 25, 2014 LMV
[1] 2009(4) ALD 129 (DB)